The Tribunal held that CIT(A) misinterpreted a VSVS 2020 declaration for penalty as covering quantum, dismissing the appeal without considering merits. The order was set aside, and the matter remanded for de-novo adjudication. Quantum issues must be assessed independently of VSVS for penalties.
The Tribunal held that AO’s ad-hoc disallowances were unsustainable as he failed to verify evidence. CIT(A) examined detailed ledgers and explanations, deleting unsupported additions. The appeal highlights the importance of evidence-based assessments over arbitrary estimates.
A company and its directors avoided penalties for late filing of financial statements after submitting them within thirty days of the show-cause notice, demonstrating compliance relief under Section 454(3).
A company and its directors were exempted from penalties for late filing of financial statements after rectifying the default within thirty days, highlighting the protective provision under Section 454(3).
ITAT Agra held that reassessment under Section 144 by JAO is valid even though faceless procedure under Section 144B was generally applicable. The CBDT Circular of 17.03.2022 provided relaxation for cases with expiring limitation. CIT(A)’s non-est finding was set aside, ensuring compliance with procedural exceptions.
A company and its director were penalised for failing to mention directors’ DINs in financial statements, highlighting the importance of accurate statutory disclosures under Section 158.
A company and its directors were penalised under the Companies Act for failing to hold a quarterly board meeting within the prescribed 120-day period, highlighting strict enforcement of Section 173 compliance.
MCA penalizes a company and its Managing Director for late filing of director resignation form DIR-12, emphasizing strict compliance under Section 172 of the Companies Act.
ITAT Agra held that additional evidence proving the land’s distance from municipal limits is crucial for reassessment under Section 56(2)(vii). The case was remanded to AO for de novo verification, allowing the assessee to file further supporting documents.
The Tribunal found that the AO failed to establish any bogus purchase or sale since the assessee never handled the goods and only received net surplus. Identical findings in earlier years compelled the ITAT to delete the same addition again. The takeaway is that established business patterns cannot be arbitrarily recharacterized as accommodation entries.
